Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 436 posts

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#71

Post by rconti »

daodedickinson wrote: post #52
fooey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

Exactly, and sites like Reddit make money on the same sort of thing. It wasn't controversial when Facebook and Google became arms of the Obama and then Clinton campaigns, but now more people are turning on Facebook after learning that their info was sold to the Trump campaign and companies and so on through companies like CA.

I would say that the alleged use of this information by foreign-funded groups has soured people on it more quickly. I think this kind of behavior would have eventually come to be seen in a negative light over the years, but the possibly-more-nefarious connections has accelerated the process.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#72

Post by DamnInteresting »

downandout wrote: post #35

I’m sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they attempted to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they were successful in changing the outcom…

It's not necessary to change the votes of those who have already made up their minds. If one can nudge fence-sitters and undecided votes to a particular side, that can contribute to a win. Likewise if a certain subset of voters can be persuaded not to vote, and/or people who planned to sit out the election can be convinced to go out and participate.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#73

Post by dictum »

gowld wrote: post #47
fooey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

How? Facebook doesn't get paid when app-developers access users, do they? Wouldn't facebook make more money if CA was forced to go through FB's ad-targeting systems instead of CA's own offsite ad campaigns?

This doesn't answer your question specifically, but there's the possibility that FB wanted a heated political environment inside its platform so it could sell more ads for all parties involved in the race, keep people engaging with the platform, etc.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#74

Post by wmeredith »

downandout wrote: post #35

I’m sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they attempted to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they were successful in changing the outcom…

You’re laying out a false dichotomy here. The outcome of the election can be divorced from the fact that these companies are a cancer on society.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#75

Post by make3 »

tootie wrote: post #23
Twisell wrote: post #9

> Facebook’s chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the company after internal disagreements over how the social network should deal with its role in spreading disinformation, according to current and former employees briefed on the matter. This opening sentence is frightening, I would rather have learned that FB executive disagree about how to deal with FB "role in NOT spreading disinformation"

FB is big enough to have developed factions and I can totally see Zuck not being up to the task of controlling them.

lol he's still 100% responsible, as he chose the people who chose them, and is responsible for the culture.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#76

Post by karmelapple »

jstalin wrote: post #61
daodedickinson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and sites like Reddit make money on the same sort of thing. It wasn't controversial when Facebook and Google became arms of the Obama and then Clinton campaigns, but now more people are turning on Facebook after learning that their info was sold to the Trump campaign and companies and so on through companies like CA.

Who remembers how the Obama campaign's social media analytics and strategy were breathlessly praised ?

Is there a difference in the means and ends?

I don’t think we have fully enough information yet, but if a political campaign is using analytics to clearly advertise their campaign, fine, that’s being straightforward.

If a political campaign is posting in ways that do not clearly label it as a political campaign, and is lying to people viewing the data it is paying to show, would you agree that’s kind of a different situation?

There’s not enough information yet I think to claim what was shown, but if political campaigns are not labeling their ads clearly, that is in violation of a variety of state - and some federal - laws.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#77

Post by anigbrowl »

netsharc wrote: post #39
fooey wrote: post #17

There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/9758…

I'm no fan of Facebook, but if they have some sort of contract with CA, isn't it within their right to audit them? And if one company wanted to invite another for whatever collaboration, they should be allowed to. And if the collaboration is doing something illegal, obviously personnel from both companies should be charged. And FB can do whatever investigation it wants (as long it's legal) and the authorities are fre…

When police are involved that's one of those 'get in line' situations. I suspect the UK authorities are far more worried about the potential for destruction of evidence that they are in hampering an 'investigation' by FB.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#78

Post by cratermoon »

jstalin wrote: post #61
daodedickinson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and sites like Reddit make money on the same sort of thing. It wasn't controversial when Facebook and Google became arms of the Obama and then Clinton campaigns, but now more people are turning on Facebook after learning that their info was sold to the Trump campaign and companies and so on through companies like CA.

Who remembers how the Obama campaign's social media analytics and strategy were breathlessly praised ?

[flagged]

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#79

Post by mattnewton »

narrator wrote: post #60
mattnewton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to flip the voters, just get them to not show up, and get more republicans to show up. This isn’t about politics, this is about buisiness interests, and professional reputation. Some examples of ads using this technique: http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/11/03/text-vote-hillary-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...

Does propaganda work or doesn't it? The idea being pushed that since it does, only approved propaganda should be let through. Trump winning is proof that there's a need for regulation of propaganda.

Propaganda works, which is why we have laws that require the source of messages in other mediums be identified, and why we regulate it in a variety of other ways.

IANAL but these ads are not covered by the regulation because they were not written in the internet era, and the law likely needs a refresh or at least some case law examples to figure out how to apply it.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#80

Post by prepend »

celticninja wrote: post #44
netsharc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of Facebook, but if they have some sort of contract with CA, isn't it within their right to audit them? And if one company wanted to invite another for whatever collaboration, they should be allowed to. And if the collaboration is doing something illegal, obviously personnel from both companies should be charged. And FB can do whatever investigation it wants (as long it's legal) and the authorities are fre…

if there has been a breach of the law that takes precedence over contract law. If a criminal prosecution takes place and results in a conviction then it makes the civil case a much easier win (and less costly to as the government is doing the majority of the work).

Obstructing justice or going against a legal order takes precedence over contract law. But pretty much all laws take precedent over contract when the contract is in conflict.

Facebook at CA isn’t illegal in and of itself. The important factor will be what they were doing.

Post reply on HN